Home

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Oh no, not another post about abortion

  • Oct. 5th, 2008 at 10:10 AM
knitted uterus
I've realised some big problems which get in the way of trying to explain an anti-abortion stance in a mainstream feminist space.

I first is that most mainstream feminists have completely dehumanised foetuses* to the extent that many of them actually cannot comprehend the idea that anyone could not dehumanise foetuses. Sometimes this isn't immediately apparent because they'll say that their argument doesn't hinge on the 'personhood'** of the foetus because no-one should be forced to use their physical resources to support someone else. However, when you try to discuss the dehumanising of foetuses with reference of other groups of humans who are dehumanised you get called racist/sexist/ablist because the only way a severely disabled person could have the same inherent worth as a foetus would be by the severely disabled person being subhuman. It's a pity, because I think that feminist environments might be really good places to discuss the intersectionality which not only means that black/female/disabled foetuses are more likely to be aborted, but that the legal protection of those foetuses depends upon their disabilities.

This also comes up if you try to explain why "Don't like abortion, don't have one" is a stupid argument. If one excepts a sort of liberal 'live and let live' attitude, then the only excuse for trying to change other people's behaviour is to stop them harming third parties. If you can't comprehend foetuses being third persons then people's objections to abortion are reduced to 'squeamishness' and dismissed. And again, if you try to explain with reference to other situations in which people advocate for dehumanised groups you're accused of being sexist/racist/ablist because the only way you could possibly see those struggles as in any way equivalent would be to minimise the importance of those struggles.

When I say "X is unethical" there are usually caveats. As I see it there are three main caveats. The first is that X is the lesser of two evils in some circumstances. If we're talking about murder of born humans, I think it's justifiable in self defence and in the defence of others. Similarly, there are some circumstances in which I don't think that X is the lesser of two evils, but I also think you can't really blame someone for deciding to do X in the circumstances. People in abusive relationships who kill their abuser in his sleep because they genuinely think it's the only way to escape. Mothers who kill their babies due to post-natal oppression. In these cases the perpetrator seems to be more of a victim and it is our job to work out how we let it happen and how we can stop it happening again. The third caveat is that we are all capable of doing horrific terrible things and that does not make us bad, worthless people. I get the impression that religious people are a bit better at this, probably because recite liturgy with sentiments to the effect of "I know that there is no excuse for what we have done, we are all evil sinners, we all deserve to be smooshed and it is only by your ridiculous mercy that we are not smooshed." Once you see yourself as a horrible sinner you gain a bit more compassion for the people society singles out as horrible sinners.

So when I say that I think abortion is unethical, no, that doesn't include ectopic pregnancies, no, that doesn't mean I blame women who have abortions under threat of poverty and violence, no, it doesn't mean I feel morally superior to women who have abortions in circumstances I think don't justify them. It means that I think we should work to reduce the number of abortions and whilst, just as with anti-rape campaigns, not doing the Bad Thing yourself should be a central part of that, it also requires challenging the circumstances and attitudes which lead to abortions.

*I'm just going to foetus as shorthand for humans between conception and birth. I'm too lazy to write foetus/embryo/zygote and I will not become magically enlightened into the pro-abortion-choice fold if you patronisingly point out to me the proper medical words.

**That term is such a fucking vacuous quasi-scientific excuse for discrimination.

Comments

[info]miss_s_b wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 10:53 am (UTC)
Am commenting to show that I have read. I want to respond, but am not sure how to word my response. Personally, I am largely in agreement with your position, but I am still vehemently pro-choice.
[info]lavendersparkle wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 11:39 am (UTC)
Where did you come from? Are you someone I know in real life?
[info]miss_s_b wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 11:41 am (UTC)
No, I got directed to one of your previous posts on abortion and found your views interesting so have been lurking like a scary lurker.
[info]lavendersparkle wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 11:55 am (UTC)
That's fine. I welcome scary lurkers. Whenever someone I don't know comments (or even more exciting friends me) I have a look at their profile to try to work out how they found me, but I couldn't work it out with you so I thought you might be a Lib Dem I knew in real life.

If it's not too rude to ask (and I'm asking mainly to inflate my sense of self importance) who directed you?
[info]miss_s_b wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 12:00 pm (UTC)
Might have been Andrew Hickey or Ducker... I have you on my politics reading list ([info]lcreadinglist) so I don't read every post.

I commented because nobody else did, and I thought it was a well-thought out post that deserved comments.
[info]neonchameleon wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 12:22 pm (UTC)
That term is such a fucking vacuous quasi-scientific excuse for discrimination.

Depends on how it is used. Amongst other things, it is an attempt to put the entities deserving rights and responsibilities on a basis that is not 26 pairs of chromasomes (bringing ethical implications for AI work). It is something where the bar sould be set as low as possible - but I fail to see what is more deserving of protection about a small bundle of cells such as a foetus in its early stages than a small bundle of cells such as a finger. To me it's the brain (in humans) and the capacity for intelligent thought that matters. (Hence Terry Schiavo).
[info]livredor wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 09:25 pm (UTC)
You know what? It's sort of intellectually interesting to debate how we might determine whether hypothetical AIs deserved human rights. But it's very angels on a pinhead when there are actual living people who are not considered human (or not human enough to be "allowed" to live or be worthy of medical care) because they're not intelligent enough, or because they are physically too restricted to be able to pass standard intelligence tests.

I don't think an early embryo is a person, and I'm reasonably prepared to accept that Schiavo was literally a living corpse by the end. But there are way too many people having delightful little philosophical discussions about "personhood" which turn out to be a minimally polite way of debating whether it's justified spending resources on those kind of people. The whole concept is tainted, not just by the moronic tribalism that passes for the abortion debate, but by an invidious attempt to mainstream socially sanctioned killing of disabled people. So yes, fucking vacuous fucking excuse for not just discrimination, but everything from encouraging suicide to actual murder of people who just aren't "intelligent" enough to realize that they would be "better off" not annoying people by existing.
[info]lavendersparkle wrote:
Oct. 6th, 2008 07:44 am (UTC)
Did you hear the Baroness Warnock interview when she slips from public position of 'we should allow people to choose to die to releave their suffering' into 'let's exterminate the expensive wastes of space'? I think she was arguing that people should be allowed to end their lives if they want to and the interviewer asked 'what if they don't want to?' and she replied that if they were a burden maybe they should want to. Alec's comment was that, as she's a life peer and an academic she's probably been much more of a burden on the public purse than the average person with dementia. Of course, paying people to come up with intellectual justifications for murderous ablism is a much better use of public funds than feeding and caring for people who can't do it for themselves.
[info]naath wrote:
Oct. 6th, 2008 11:18 am (UTC)
ARGH! Argh Argh Argh. I hate these people sometimes :(

I really think that assisted suicide should be legal - I think it's fucking inhuman to insist that someone go on living through what they have declared to be unbearable amounts of pain (physical or emotional) - but killing people because you think they *ought* to want to be dead is revolting.

The current stabs-in-the-dark at testing for sentience are really really sucky. I do err on the side of "foetus not sentient, so OK to kill it" with added "foetus is causing harm to mother, causing non-consensual harm is bad so self-defence measures justified"... I do think that abortions are kinda icky though and it would be nice if people never had to have them (and it wierds me out when pro-life organisations are UTTER FAIL on subjects such as "providing contraception" and "providing support for new mothers who didn't really want to be mothers but are going to try their very best").

(I can't find the cat picture with "this post is relevant to my interests, but imagine it is inserted here, to add needed cute things)
(Anonymous) wrote:
Oct. 7th, 2008 01:22 pm (UTC)
and she replied that if they were a burden maybe they should want to.

Grr...

The nastier and snarkier side of me is saying that she should want to put herself out of our misery after making a comment like that.
[info]neonchameleon wrote:
Oct. 7th, 2008 03:12 pm (UTC)
That was me btw.
[info]neonchameleon wrote:
Oct. 7th, 2008 01:20 pm (UTC)
You know what? It's intellectually satisfying to defend the case that everything possible should be done for everyone who needs it. But it's very unrealistic to think that there are sufficient resources and medical needs are sufficiently low that no prioritisation is necessary.

Now, can we stop with the insulting generalisations and caricatures please?

But there are way too many people having delightful little philosophical discussions about "personhood" which turn out to be a minimally polite way of debating whether it's justified spending resources on those kind of people.

Agreed.

The whole concept is tainted

And here is where our fundamental disagreement lies. I believe that the concept would not gain as much traction as it does if there wasn't a case there to answer. And so I'm in favour of forceful answers rather than a shutdown, and salvaging what good from it there is (and there is some as I've tried to illustrate).

Yes, it's regularly used as the excuse you describe. On the other hand, I think that many major human rights advances have ultimately workedd by convincing the majority that a certain group are people. And I don't want to concede that playing field.
[info]mummyfrances wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 04:09 pm (UTC)
In light of miss_s_b's comment, I don't normally comment, not having much of use to add.

As ever, however, I read and thoguht "that is a really good post". :)
[info]wildeabandon wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 07:23 pm (UTC)
Thank you! Is this pure coincidence, or did you see the recent trainwreck I got into on the feminist comm?
[info]atreic wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 07:39 pm (UTC)
Go on, you know you want to link....
[info]lavendersparkle wrote:
Oct. 6th, 2008 06:32 am (UTC)
Mod note (yay, it's my blog and I can do as I want to)
The community in question has a policy of not linking to LJ posts without the poster's permission and requests not to be linked to without posters' permission. Please do not link to it without permission, both out of respect and to not give anti-choice misogynists a bad name.
[info]atreic wrote:
Oct. 6th, 2008 09:25 pm (UTC)
Re: Mod note (yay, it's my blog and I can do as I want to)
Sorry, didn't realise!
[info]lavendersparkle wrote:
Oct. 6th, 2008 06:35 am (UTC)
I would be lying if I claimed that it wasn't an inspiration.
[info]cartesiandaemon wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 07:25 pm (UTC)
I also thought that was well said.